Part 3
The excitement in the Court room, when the names of my three witnesses were called, was most intense, and when it subsided, Mr. Taylor was put upon the stand, and testified as follows:--
_Question._ Was you a teacher in the Christ Church Sunday-school?
_Answer._ For the white children I was, and the school was held in the church.
_Q._ Did you never visit the lecture room?
_A._ I had nothing to do with the school that was kept there.
_Q._ Did you never distribute books to the negro children of that school?
_A._ I attended the library of the school for white children.
_Q._ Did you not instruct colored children to read from those books?
_A._ I did not.
Mr. Taylor was not cross-examined by the Prosecuting Attorney, and I allowed him to take his seat, and called Mr. John Williams, Attorney, and Clerk of the Court. This gentleman took the stand with a pallid countenance, and quivering lip, evidently extremely troubled by the position in which he found himself placed. My benevolent feelings would not allow him to convict himself or his amiable daughter, and I therefore asked him a few unimportant questions, and dismissed him. I then called Lawyer Sharp, who testified as follows:--
_Q._ Were you a teacher in the school for colored children, held in Christ’s Church Lecture room?
_A._ No, madam.
_Q._ Did you not attend the Sabbath-school held there for the instruction of negro children?
_A._ I went there, occasionally, and lectured to them.
_Q._ Did you not distribute books among them?
_A._ _The ladies had all to do with that!_
_Q._ When you visited that school, did you not instruct them yourself?
To this question he replied very _sharply_,--thus evincing his name to be indicative of his character and disposition,--that they did not teach them to read and write, and that he did not know that the law prohibited religious and moral instruction to negroes.
I answered, “If you, sir, who are engaged in the practice of the law, did not know it, how could it be expected that I should?”
“Madam?” said he, as though he did not understand me. I repeated the question, and he then addressed the Judge, and asked permission to say what he had to communicate directly to the jury. I made no objection, and he proceeded to state as follows:--
That certain negroes applied to Rev. Mr. Cummings, the Pastor of Christ’s Church, for religious instruction, and were allowed to meet for that purpose in the lecture room of the church. He (Sharp) occasionally visited the school and lectured to them. _He found that some of them could read very well_, but that when they came to the hard words, _he allowed them to skip over them_!
This was sufficient for my purposes. This witness, having at first denied that the members of that school were taught to read, when the question was pressed home, endeavored to escape the perils of his position by saying that _the ladies had all to do with that_! Oh, brave Mr. Sharp! You will henceforth be remembered in Norfolk as having crept under the ladies’ aprons in order to shelter yourself from the eye of the insulted law.
But, even after this, he admitted that the scholars were in possession of books, for he, himself, examined them, and found that some of them could read very well. He could not be mistaken about this, because he allowed them to skip over the hard words. This was his own language, and I here leave him where he left himself.
These books were, in many instances, the identical copies used in my school, and my only object in introducing this testimony was to show the jury that I had been doing only what was habitually done in this school, and that if I was guilty of a violation of the law, I had abundant precedents among the aristocracy of the city. This having been shown conclusively by the unwilling witness, Sharp, my case is ended.
The Prosecuting Attorney, who treated me with the utmost respect and deference throughout the whole proceedings, gallantly waived his right to address the jury first, and I proceeded with my closing speech as follows:--
“GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY:
“I now deem it right and proper that you should know something of Mrs. Douglass, who stands before you charged with violating your laws. I do not plead guilty to this charge, for, in my opinion, to be a violator of any law or laws, the individual must know that they are such, which I did not, and had abundant precedents among those who should have known it, if they were such, for what I did. I am a Southern woman by birth, education, and feeling. I have been a slaveholder myself, and I would be again, if I felt so disposed. I am a native of and have always resided in a Southern slave State. The house of my childhood is as dear to me as my life, and I am as deeply interested in the welfare of Virginia, and of the whole united Southern slave States, as I am in the State of South Carolina; yes, and a great deal more so than very many who call themselves men. I am no abolitionist, neither am I a fanatic, and I am by education as strongly opposed as you are to the interference of Northern anti-slavery men with our institutions, although I believe that their principles are based on a religious foundation. I deem it the duty of every Southerner, morally and religiously, to instruct his slaves, that they may know their duties to their masters, and to their common God. Let the masters first do their duty to them, for they are still our slaves and servants, whether bond or free, and can be nothing else in our community. Let us not quarrel with our neighbors, but rather look around us and see what we have ourselves to do that we have left undone so long. I am a strong advocate for the religious and moral instruction of the whole human family. I have always instructed my own slaves, and will continue to do so as long as I remain in a slave State. Still, I am not disposed to violate the laws of any people or place where I may chance to reside. I cannot believe for a moment that this prosecution is a mere matter of dollars and cents, or that there is not one truly good and noble hearted man among you. Oh no; this I cannot and will not believe. Then let it be the welfare of your people and your country that you seek, and I am with you, heart and soul. This is a matter that calls for the consideration of every true and noble heart--the common welfare of our people. So far as my knowledge of human nature extends, the man who is born a coward, nursed in the lap of ignorance, and brought up a coward, naturally dies a coward. The application of this I leave to yourselves.
“The children whom I had for instruction were members of Christ’s Church Sunday-school. My own little servant was handed a primer by one of the teachers of that school, with the instruction that he must study his book, and attend the Sunday-school. He was made ready by myself or daughter, and sent every afternoon with his book, to that school. This was done for two years before I interested myself in these children in the form of a regular day-school. I believe it is not expected that ladies will come to the Court House to learn the laws, rules, and regulations of a city in which they may happen to reside. In my opinion, whatever the religious portion of the community is engaged in doing, whether in city, town, or country, is generally considered as lawful and proper. We took care of those children, visited them when sick, and ministered to their wants, and it was a pleasure for us to do so. Was there any thing wrong in this?
“Let us look into the situation of our colored population in city of Norfolk, for they are not dumb brutes. If they were, they would be more carefully considered, and their welfare better provided for. For instance, two or three of these people are not allowed to assemble together by themselves, whether in sickness or in health. There is no provision made for them, whatever the circumstances may be, and such meetings are pronounced unlawful and treasonable. Think you, gentlemen, that there is not misery and distress among these people? Yes, indeed, misery enough, and frequently starvation. Even those that are called free are heavily taxed, and their privileges greatly limited; and when they are sick, or in want, on whom does the duty devolve to seek them out and administer to their necessities? Does it fall upon you, gentlemen? Oh no, it is not expected that gentlemen will take the trouble to seek out a negro hut for the purpose of alleviating the wretchedness he may find within it. Why then persecute your benevolent ladies for doing that which you yourselves have so long neglected? Shall we treat our slaves with less compassion than we do the cattle in our fields?
“In my opinion, we have nothing to fear from the true blooded negro. It is the half-breed, or those with more or less white blood in their veins, whom I have always found presumptuous, treacherous and revengeful. And do you blame them for this? How can you? Ask yourselves the cause. Ask how that white blood got beneath those tawny skins, and let nature herself account for the exhibition of these instincts. Blame the authors of this devilish mischief, but not the innocent victims of it.
“As for myself, I shall keep on with my good work; not, however, by continuing to violate what I now know to be your laws, but by endeavoring to teach the colored race humility and a prayerful spirit, how to bear their sufferings as our Saviour bore his for us all. I will teach them their duty to their superiors, how to live, and how to die. And now, if ignorance of your peculiar laws is not a sufficient excuse for my violation of the letter of them, surely my good intentions, and the abundant examples set before me by your most worthy and pious citizens, ought to convince you that I was actuated by no improper motives, and had no ulterior designs against the peace and dignity of your Commonwealth. But, if otherwise, there are your laws: enforce them to the letter. You may send me, if you so decide, to that cold and gloomy prison. I can be as happy there as I am in my quiet little home; and, in the pursuit of knowledge, and with the resources of a well-stored mind, I shall be, gentlemen, a sufficient companion for myself. Of one consolation you cannot deprive me: I go not as a convicted felon, for I have violated no tittle of any one of the laws that are embodied in the Divine Decalogue; I shall be only a single sufferer under the operation of one of the most inhuman and unjust laws that ever disgraced the statute book of a civilized community.”
I here closed my remarks, after saying that if any counsellor present was disposed to speak in my behalf, he should receive my grateful thanks; but, no one responding, I passed into the jury-room, to await the result. I was informed that the Prosecuting Attorney made but a few remarks, not urging a conviction very strongly, but, of course, as in duty bound, correctly stating the law, in the case, to the jury. A number of gentlemen present came to me and tendered their congratulations on my address to the jury. I had spoken in a loud and distinct voice, duly emphasizing my words that they might have their full effect. I had spoken for nearly three-quarters of an hour, and felt somewhat exhausted, but by no means unnerved.
It was not long before I was informed that the jury were not likely to agree immediately upon a verdict, and I therefore returned home. They had some difficulty in coming to a unanimous verdict, and it was not until the morning of the third day that they rendered one of Guilty, but fixing the fine at one dollar, instead of one hundred. This verdict was to have been expected. There was no denial that the law, as it stood, had been disobeyed by me, and a verdict of guilty on the charge, as preferred, was therefore inevitable. The jury had it in their power to reduce the fine to a mere nominal sum, which they did, also fully believing that the judge would exercise the same discretion, and entirely remit the imprisonment attached to the offence. This was also the universal belief as well as general desire on the part of the community. I was not sent for on the rendition of the verdict; and, the court, having to adjourn, my sentence in form was deferred until the 10th day of January, 1854.
In order that the fidelity of my narrative may be attested by the evidence of the Virginians themselves, I will here insert an article that appeared in the Petersburg _Daily Express_, dated November 30th, 1853, and which was made up chiefly from the Norfolk _Daily News_. It was headed “Her Own Lawyer,” and I give it _verbatim_:--
“Quite a novel and highly interesting case has recently been tried before Judge Baker at Norfolk City. A Mrs. Margaret Douglass, formerly of Charleston, S. C., was arraigned one day last week, on a charge of teaching negro children to read and write, contrary to the statute in such cases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth.
“By some means or other, as we learn from the ‘Daily News,’ a report had been previously circulated that the lady had determined not to employ the services of counsel, but to rely solely upon her own legal abilities in conducting her defence. This, as a matter of course, filled the court-room with persons anxious to witness the novel spectacle, and when she entered the court-room and took her seat among the lawyers, a most profound sensation was created.
“The jury had no sooner been empanneled, than the lady, without waiting for the examination of witnesses, or the opening remarks of the Attorney for the Commonwealth, proceeded in a clear and melodious voice, to the consideration of the charges set forth in the indictment.
“The surprise of the whole legal fraternity was so great, at this sudden revolution in the time honored practice of the Courts, that she had progressed considerably into the merits of the case, before his Honor recovered himself sufficiently to inform her, that it would be more regular to suspend her remarks until after the examination of witnesses was concluded. The lady readily assented to the proposition of his Honor, and the witnesses for the Commonwealth were called to the stand. By their testimony, it appeared that, some months ago, information reached his Honor, the Mayor, Simon S. Stubbs, Esq., of a school for the education of blacks, being in successful operation in the city of Norfolk, under the superintendence of Mrs. Douglass. A warrant was immediately issued, with directions to the officers to bring all parties concerned before him, in order that the matter might be investigated. Upon repairing to the residence of Mrs. Douglass, the officers found some eighteen or twenty youthful descendents of Ham engaged in literary pursuits, all of whom, with their teachers, Mrs. Douglass and her daughter, were taken into custody, and carried to the Mayor’s office. After a full investigation of the matter, his Honor decided to dismiss the complaint in order that a Grand Jury might have an opportunity of giving it consideration. At the meeting of the Grand Jury a true bill was found against Mrs. Douglass and her daughter, but the latter having previously gone to New York, process could not be served upon her. On the part of the defence, the lady examined several prominent and respectable gentlemen, members of the Church, for the purpose of showing that the practice of teaching blacks had been sanctified by the customs of the members of the different churches in the city in having Sunday-schools exclusively for that purpose. It did not appear from the evidence of any of the gentlemen called upon by Mrs. Douglass, that they had actually seen negroes taught _from books_ in any of the Sunday-schools of the City, but the fact, as stated by them, that nearly all of the negroes attending the Sunday-schools _could read_, gave rise to a violent suspicion that many of the ladies and gentlemen of our city, moving in the higher circles of society, had been guilty of as flagrant a violation of the law, as could be imputed to Mrs. Douglass and her daughter.
“At the conclusion of the evidence, the attorney for the Commonwealth kindly gave way for Mrs. Douglass to continue her appeal to the Jury, which was done on the part of that lady, in a manner that would have reflected credit on Miss Lucy Stone, or any other member of the ‘strong minded’ sisterhood. She disdained to deny the charge preferred against her, or to shirk the responsibility in any way whatever, but gloried in the philanthropic duties in which she had been engaged. She denied, however, any knowledge of the existing laws upon the subject, and confidently expected that the jury would not pronounce her guilty, for having committed no other offence than that of being betrayed into error--if such it was--by what she had deemed distinguished precedents. Having concluded her address she retired from the court, and the case was briefly concluded by the Attorney for the Commonwealth.
“The jury, being unable to agree upon a verdict the first day of the trial, were adjourned over until next morning, when they found the defendant guilty, and fined her one dollar.
“The _Beacon_ says, the Judge in passing sentence, according to the statute, will condemn her to imprisonment for not less than six months.”
During the interval that occurred between my conviction and the sentence of the Court, I obtained permission from the Court and Sheriff to visit New York, where I remained two weeks, and then returned with my daughter. This being so contrary to the expectations and wishes of the authorities and other public men of Norfolk, who were extremely anxious that I should never return, in order that, by branding me as a fugitive from justice, they might escape the disgrace and odium already attached to their proceedings, and thus get cleverly out of the difficulty; they were exceedingly incensed, and commenced a series of persecutions in the shape of personal attacks in some of the Norfolk papers, particularly the _Courier_ and the _Argus_. The editor of the _Courier_, W. Wallace Davis, was the ringleader in this movement, and was frequently in the habit of disgracing himself and his paper, and insulting the better class of the community, by indulging in such diatribes as no gentleman would ever suffer himself to be guilty of. It would seem as though the justice of Heaven had speedily overtaken him with its retributions, for it is but a few weeks ago that he died suddenly, as it is said from the effects of some great mental suffering, and it is not ungenerous to suppose that the stings of conscience, when he reflected upon his inhuman course towards me, became severer than he could endure. I leave him with his God.
To show that such were the wishes of the authorities and others, I quote the following passage from the Norfolk _Argus_, under date of February 9th, 1854. I quote the whole of the article here, though portions of it have reference to what occurred subsequently, as I may have, occasion to refer to the other passages. It is headed “Commonwealth _vs._ Mrs. Douglass,” and reads as follows:
“We publish to-day the judgment of Hon. Judge Baker in the case of Mrs. Douglass, which has much excited our citizens. The first time within the passage of the act forbidding the teaching of slaves or free colored persons to read or write, has a case of this description come under the jurisdiction of our Court, and it was singular that this case should be a woman. The jury found a verdict of guilty, and the law had to be sustained. Sympathy was aroused for Mrs. Douglass. It was revolting to the citizens to have a woman imprisoned in our jail, and every inducement was offered Mrs. Douglass to escape the punishment. The Court was obliged to adjourn its judgment over, and although a _capias_ was awarded, yet it was the hope and wish of every one that she would leave the city. But no; ‘a martyr’ she ‘would be to the cause of benevolence;’ and to cap the climax, she brought her daughter, a maiden of some seventeen summers, who had obeyed the injunctions of her mother, as a child should, to try the stern realities of the laws, and, to use her own language in defending her cause, ‘to glory in works of benevolence and charity to a race down-trodden.’ Then sympathy departed, and in the breast of every one rose a righteous indignation towards a person who would throw contempt in the face of our laws, and brave the imprisonment for ‘the cause of humanity.’
“The decision of Judge Baker is cogent and pungent, and will be read with interest. The laws must be upheld. It is not for the Judge to set upon the constitutionality or justice of the law; it is for him a sacred duty to impose the punishment meted out in the code. Virginia must keep in restraint the wire-workings of abolition sentiments. We have in this town suffered much from the aggression of Northern foes, and a strong cordon must encircle our domestic institutions. We must preserve from discord and angry passions our firesides and homesteads. We must preserve inviolate the majesty of laws necessary for the protection of our rights; and there is no one of intelligence and foresight who will pronounce the judgment unrighteous.
“Mrs. Douglass’s time will run out this week, and we have heard it stated from good authority, that her imprisonment will be a pecuniary reward to her. We hope that our citizens will prevent by all possible means any attempt to aid this woman, but let her depart hence with only one wish, that her presence will never be intruded upon us again. Let her seek her associates at the North, and with them commingle, but let us put a check to such mischievous views as fell from her lips last November, sentiments unworthy a resident of the State, and in direct rebellion against our Constitution.”
My readers will perceive two important concessions in this article; first, that mine was the first case that had ever been tried under that peculiar act since its passage, and that public sympathy was strongly excited in my favor: and secondly, that it was the hope and wish of every one that I should leave the city, and thus enable them to escape from the dilemma in which they were placed. Now, I submit to my readers whether it was not asking a little too much of me, that I should voluntarily allow myself to be branded as an escaped fugitive, and subject myself to be advertised as such in every newspaper in the country, have a price set upon my head, and be hourly liable to arrest by any officer, who thought it worth the trouble, wherever I might be. No, I was no coward; and, rather than place myself in such a position as that, I would have suffered my right hand to be cut off.
It must be said, however, that neither I, nor any one else, ever supposed for a moment, that I should receive any further punishment for my offence than the infliction of the nominal fine already fixed by the verdict of the jury. Justice did not require it, nor the cause of morality. My character was such that there was no cause to fear that I should break my pledge, and attempt to renew my school; and common gallantry alone should have led any gentleman, much more a dignified Judge, in whose sole discretion the matter rested, to have dealt with a woman as leniently as the strict letter of the law would allow. I rested in perfect security until the 10th day of January, 1854, when I was called before the Court, and received from Judge Baker, not only an unnecessarily long and discourteous reprimand, but a sentence to an imprisonment of one month in the city jail!